State v. . Spruill

Winborne, J.

Defendant complains, and rightly so, that while the law arising upon the evidence given in the case in so far as it relates to his plea of self-defense was declared and explained in the charge to the jury, as it should have been, the court failed to declare and explain the law arising upon the evidence given in the case as it relates to defendant’s legal right to defend his home from attack, and to evict trespassers therefrom.

The right of a person to defend his home from attack is a substantive right, as is the right to evict trespassers from his home. These principles of law have been discussed in numerous decisions of this Court,

*358

among which are these:

S. v. Crook,

133 N. C., 672 , 45 S. E., 564 ;

S. v. Scott,

142 N. C., 582 , 55 S. E., 69 ;

S. v. Gray,

162 N. C., 608 , 77 S. E., 833 , 45 L. R. A. (N. S.), 71;

Curles v. Scales,

200 N. C., 612 , 158 S. E., 89 ; see also

S. v. Bryson,

200 N. C., 50 , 156 S. E., 143 ;

S. v. Marshall,

208 N. C., 127 , 179 S. E., 427 ;

S. v. Reynolds,

212 N. C., 37 , 192 S. E., 871 ;

S. v. Roddey,

219 N. C., 532 , 14 S. E. (2d), 526 ;

S. v. Anderson,

222 N. C., 148 , 22 S. E. (2d), 271 ;

S. v. Baker,

222 N. C., 428 , 23 S. E. (2d), 340 ;

S. v. Ellerbe,

223 N. C., 770 , 28 S. E. (2d), 519 ;

S. v. Pennell,

224 N. C., 622 , 31 S. E. (2d), 857 .

Hence, when in the trial of a criminal action charging an assault, or other kindred crime, there is evidence from which it may be inferred as in this case that the force used by defendant was in defending his home from attack by another, he is entitled to have evidence considered in the light of applicable principles of law. In such event, and to'that end, it becomes the duty of the court to declare and explain the law arising thereon, G. S., 1-180, formerly C. S., 564, and failure of the court to so instruct the jury on such substantive feature, as in this case, is prejudicial. This is true even though there be no special prayer for instruction to that effect. See

S. v. Merrick,

171 N. C., 788 , 88 S. E., 501 ;

S. v. Bost,

189 N. C., 639 , 127 S. E., 689 ;

S. v. Thornton,

211 N. C., 413 , 190 S. E., 758 ;

School District v. Alamance County,

211 N. C., 213 , 189 S. E., 873 ;

S. v. Robinson,

213 N. C., 273 , 195 S. E., 824 ;

S. v. Bryant,

213 N. C., 752 , 197 S. E., 530 ;

Spencer v. Brown,

214 N. C., 114 , 198 S. E., 630 ;

Self Help Corp. v. Brinkley,

215 N. C., 615 , 2 S. E. (2d), 889 ;

Ryals v. Contracting Co.,

219 N. C., 479 , 14 S. E. (2d), 531 ;

Smith v. Kappas,

219 N. C., 850 , 15 S. E. (2d), 375 .

And the same rule applies in respect of the right to evict trespassers from one’s home.

Hence, let there be a

New trial.